James Gray Yes what I like about David Lewis is it’s a giant spreadsheet with tabs. You can connect anything to anything within that sheet. you can copy that sheet and it can be the same or different. but in his model, you absolutely cannot cross the sheets. they can’t read or write with each other. no formulas can operate between sheets. but on one sheet, nearly anything is possible. that flexibility gives a lot of power because nearly every “what if” can be answered yes. I would say it’s superior to the physics multiverse. it’s a wonderfully flexible construct.

James Gray Yes what I like about David Lewis is it’s a giant spreadsheet with tabs. You can connect anything to anything within that sheet. you can copy that sheet and it can be the same or different.

but in his model, you absolutely cannot cross the sheets.

they can’t read or write with each other. no formulas can operate between sheets.

but on one sheet, nearly anything is possible.

that flexibility gives a lot of power because nearly every “what if” can be answered yes.

I would say it’s superior to the physics multiverse.

it’s a wonderfully flexible construct.

—

James Gray
I think the draws me to it is it’s the closest thing to allowing for variation.

whitehead’s process theology is panentheism. So are some mother religions. (the universe as being in the womb of the goddess).

still too i’ve heard of mathematics and logic as being a panentheism – they don’t always correspond 1:1 but they are the animating aphysical movements that reality is a lesser form or broken form.

its definitely neoplatonic

i like the notion of it coming from within matter itself : being outside can also mean throughout if a higher dimension (flatland)

it lacks ex nihlo most likely.

it can be treated as entirely superfluous and easily discarded too, like packaging.

but i think that’s why it’s generally considered compatible with all the sciences : doesn’t get in the way.

—

 

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]